Plenary, 06 Oct 2005

Meeting date: Thursday, October 6, 2005

Official Report 780KB pdf

---

St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3356, in the name of Dennis Canavan, on the general principles of the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill.

I thank the non-Executive bills unit, as well as all those who were involved in producing the stage 1 report on the bill, especially members and clerks of the Finance Committee and the Enterprise and Culture Committee, witnesses and respondents to the consultation.

The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the establishment of a national holiday on or around St Andrew's day in order to recognise our patron saint and to give the people of Scotland the opportunity to celebrate our national identity and our ethnic and cultural diversity. Scotland is one of the few countries in the world that does not have a national day holiday. We are also right at the bottom of the European league for the number of public holidays.

The bill has received widespread support in Parliament and around the country. The proposal to introduce the bill was supported by 75 MSPs from all parties and none, which at that stage was a record level of support for any proposed member's bill. Many other expressions of support have been received from various sources, including the trade union movement, local authorities, the Commission for Racial Equality and all the major churches and other faith groups. A recent MORI opinion poll indicates that 75 per cent of Scots are in favour of the proposal. Moreover, 85 per cent of respondents to my consultation and 81 per cent of respondents to the lead committee's consultation are in favour.

However, it is obvious that the Scottish Executive has reservations. Its amendment states that the bill

"would not place a statutory obligation on employers to grant St Andrew's Day as part of employee holiday entitlement".

That is not entirely accurate. The bill would give a St Andrew's day bank holiday exactly the same statutory recognition as any other bank holiday. If any group of workers have all bank holidays written into their contractual holiday entitlement, their employer would have a statutory obligation to grant a St Andrew's day holiday. Apparently, the Executive fails to understand that workers are not guaranteed a holiday on any bank holiday, unless that is written into their contract of employment.

The Parliament does not have the power to close down every workplace on a particular day. Would we want to have such a power? Hospitals and emergency services must remain open at all times. However, the legislation on bank holidays is the only instrument that is available to the Parliament to create anything like a nationwide holiday. Many employers, in both the private sector and the public sector, recognise bank holidays, and many trade unions have negotiated recognition of bank holidays into workers' contracts. It is absolutely spurious to argue that if it is not to be a holiday for everyone, it cannae be a holiday for anyone.

The Executive amendment concedes

"that St Andrew's Day should be a day of national celebration"

and asks the Parliament to support

"the Scottish Executive's commitment to achieving this objective".

In a letter to the lead committee, Tom McCabe claimed that

"there are more effective ways of encouraging Scots to celebrate our national day",

but he failed to give any examples of those more effective ways. How on earth could a working day be a more effective celebration than a holiday? John Knox must be birling in his grave at such a perverse interpretation of the work ethic. Let us celebrate St Andrew's day by telling the workers to get on with their work.

The Executive is concerned about the effect on business, but there are some in the business community who strongly support my bill, including the Scottish Retail Consortium, the Association of Scottish Visitor Attractions and leading business people such as Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden. Although the Confederation of British Industry, the bankers and the Federation of Small Businesses expressed reservations, even they indicated that they would be prepared to go along with the proposal provided that the St Andrew's day holiday was a replacement for an existing holiday rather than an additional holiday.

Does Dennis Canavan think that the Scottish Retail Consortium has taken the view, on balance, that of the 75 per cent who support the holiday more will go Christmas shopping than will celebrate St Andrew?

I see nothing wrong, in principle, with people going shopping on a bank holiday. That has been an established custom for many years, so I do not take Jim Wallace's point at all.

My intention is that the St Andrew's day holiday should be an additional holiday, but the bill as drafted is flexible enough to accommodate either option, and that would be a matter for negotiation between employers and employees.

It is worth pointing out that one part of the United Kingdom already has not just one but two additional bank holidays. In Northern Ireland, 12 July is a bank holiday, as is 17 March, St Patrick's day, which is also a bank holiday in the Republic of Ireland. Surely it would be preposterous to argue that St Patrick's day is somehow bad for Irish business and bad for the Irish economy when it gives an injection of €80 million to the Dublin economy alone, as well as promoting Ireland internationally. Similarly, a St Andrew's day bank holiday should be seen not as a threat but as a business opportunity, especially in sectors such as retail, tourism, leisure, culture and the hospitality industries. A St Andrew's day bank holiday would be good for Scottish business, good for the Scottish economy and good for the promotion of Scotland internationally.

I remind the Parliament that the public consultation on the bill began 15 months ago. The bill was published five months ago and has been considered in detail by the Enterprise and Culture Committee. Why, then, is the Executive asking the Parliament to refer the matter back to the committee for further consideration? That looks like a devious ploy to kick the ball into the long grass. Why refer a bill back to a committee that has already considered it and reached the unanimous conclusion that the Parliament should approve its general principles? Any additional points of detail could surely be dealt with by the committee at stage 2, but now is the time to decide on the general principles. This is an historic opportunity for the Parliament to show a lead to the nation by giving statutory recognition to St Andrew's day. By doing so, we will encourage the people of Scotland to celebrate our national identity and to promote Scotland on the international stage.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill.

The introduction of the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill to Parliament has undoubtedly brought to the fore discussion about our national day and focused minds on how we ought to celebrate that day. I know that Dennis Canavan has a long-standing interest in the subject and I offer my congratulations on the work that he has done so far. We may not agree on how today's proceedings should conclude, but I want to make it clear on behalf of the Executive that we respect his intentions.

I recognise the work that has been done by the Enterprise and Culture Committee. The committee was given what, at first sight, looked like a straightforward task, but its examination of the issues has revealed their complexities, as well as the fact that the bill would not produce its intended effect. Our amendment mentions two important principles to which we think everyone in the Parliament would adhere: that we should legislate only when it is necessary to do so and that, when we legislate, we should be able to give practical effect to that legislation. The Executive is committed to improving the way in which our national day is celebrated, but we agree with the committee's conclusion that the bill does not satisfy those two important criteria. The bill's only direct legal effect would be to suspend financial and other dealings on St Andrew's day, which would in effect allow banks to close and remove the possibility of penalties for the delayed payments that would be caused by that closure.

Does the minister agree that the second of his legislative criteria would indeed be met if the bill focused attention on St Andrew's day and on the identity and promotion of Scotland?

The Executive's point is that we do not need to legislate to focus on such things. The Executive and people throughout Scotland are interested in achieving that objective, but it is not necessary to pass legislation to do so.

The bill would not create a mandatory public holiday in Scotland, as there is no such legal concept. Therefore, we could not enforce the bill as it stands even if we passed it. We believe that without legislation—I stress that—there is ample flexibility in the current allocation of holidays to allow localities or organisations to move holidays from their existing time to St Andrew's day if they wish to do so.

There is no doubt that broad consensus exists over the desirability of improving the way in which we celebrate St Andrew's day. The member in charge of the bill, a wide cross-section of members and Scottish society want to see such an improvement; so does the Executive, which is eager to build on the initiatives that it has already introduced to ensure that that aspiration is given practical effect. Referring the bill back to the committee will keep it alive and will keep alive the search for a more comprehensive way of celebrating our national day.

Will the minister give members one concrete example of a way in which St Andrew's day can be better celebrated than by having a public holiday?

Yes. We could celebrate it by celebrating our culture and creating a number of events throughout Scotland.

We are doing that anyway.

Excuse me. The member asked a question and should have the courtesy to listen to the answer.

We could celebrate St Andrew's day better by ensuring that on that day we promote our country, its interests, history and traditions abroad better than we currently do.

Will the minister take an intervention?

No, I am sorry. I am winding up.

For the reasons that I have outlined, we suggest in our amendment that the bill should be referred back to the committee and that it should actively consider a range of options for substantially improving and embedding the way in which we celebrate and recognise our national day. We commend that course of action to the Parliament.

I move amendment S2M-3356.2, to leave out from "agrees" to end and insert:

"notes that the Enterprise and Culture Committee supports the principles of the Bill; believes that St Andrew's Day should be a day of national celebration and strongly supports the Scottish Executive's commitment to achieving this objective; notes that the Enterprise and Culture Committee's Stage 1 report concludes that the Bill does not fulfil this purpose and would not place a statutory obligation on employers to grant St Andrew's Day as part of employee holiday entitlement; seeks to uphold the consensus across the Parliament that we should only legislate where necessary and when we can give effect to that legislation; believes that there is further work to be done to develop proposals to celebrate St Andrew's Day; agrees to refer the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill back to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for a further report on the general principles, and considers that further proposals should be developed for the celebration of St Andrew's Day."

That was a pretty poor apology by the minister for the Executive's stance.

I commend Dennis Canavan for the way in which he has pursued the issue and for introducing his member's bill. Whatever one's view on the details of the bill, it must be acknowledged that Dennis Canavan has done a tremendous amount of work in consulting interested parties and in rallying support for his proposal. The Scottish Conservatives support the bill's general principles, with one important caveat, which is covered by my amendment. I will come to that caveat shortly.

St Andrew was the Lord's first apostle. He was a fisherman in Galilee who was executed by the Romans. His bones were buried but removed 300 years later to Constantinople in Turkey by Emperor Constantine. Legend has it that a Greek monk called St Rule—or St Regulus—was warned in a dream that St Andrew's remains were to be removed and that he was directed by an angel to take the remains that he could find to the ends of the earth for safekeeping. St Rule followed those directions and took a tooth, an arm, a knee-cap and some fingers from the tomb as far away as he could.

At that time, Scotland was at the edge of the known world. St Rule was shipwrecked in Scotland with his cargo and the town of St Andrews—which is, of course, the home of my colleague Mr Brocklebank—was founded. St Andrew is now our patron saint, of course, and his name is celebrated on 30 November by Scots around the world.

Dennis Canavan's intention in introducing the bill was to create a national holiday that would be a day for celebrating Scottish identity. He made a persuasive case and drew parallels between the economic benefits that there could be with the tremendous economic benefits that the Irish draw from celebrating St Patrick's day. Of course, it is not just in Ireland that St Patrick's day is successful; it is celebrated throughout the world by Irish expats and is particularly significant in North America. The committee heard evidence from retailers and those who are involved in the tourism industry that the creation of a St Andrew's day holiday would provide a substantial benefit to their businesses. Quite apart from that, it should be a day on which to celebrate Scottish identity and the diversity of our culture. Those objectives should receive widespread support.

I was, therefore, depressed and dismayed to see the terms of the Executive's amendment. As Mr Canavan said, it is no more than a cynical attempt to kick the issue into the long grass. The Enterprise and Culture Committee has already considered the issue, so what is the point of referring the matter back? What does that say about the four MSPs from the Executive parties who are on the committee—Susan Deacon, Christine May, Richard Baker and Jamie Stone—who approved the general principles of the bill? Are they not to be trusted by the Executive? What is the point of having committees undertake pre-legislative scrutiny if we are to dismiss what they say, even when the Executive has a majority membership of them?

I was flabbergasted to read that the Executive's amendment

"seeks to uphold the consensus across the Parliament that we should only legislate where necessary".

In the past six years, we have had reams of ridiculous, unnecessary and unwanted pieces of legislation from the Executive. Frankly, if the Executive does not support the bill it should come out and say so. It should vote against the bill, not indulge in complicated subterfuge. Contrary to what I believe the Liberal Democrats were told at lunch time today, the Conservatives will vote against the Executive's amendment.

I turn, briefly, to my amendment. The committee heard strong evidence from employers that they did not wish an additional holiday to be granted for St Andrew's day because that would lead to extra costs, especially for small businesses that struggle to compete with larger rivals who could afford the staff to cover public holidays. They would have no objection to a St Andrew's day holiday, provided that it substituted an existing holiday at another time of year.

Which one?

I will not be prescriptive about which day that might be; that could be dealt with at stage 2. We do not need an additional holiday.

We should ensure as widespread support as possible for the bill. It would be unfortunate if the bill were to succeed without the support of the business community and employers' organisations. By amending the bill in the way that I propose, we would ensure that there is genuine consensus throughout the country in support of a St Andrew's day holiday.

Some people will criticise the bill and say that it achieves virtually nothing in legal terms but is just about symbolism. However, symbolism is important. Parliament should be about more than just the bare bones of legislation and the dry dust of legal clauses; we should lead from the front, change public perceptions and set the agenda. We should support the motion.

I move amendment S2M-3356.1 to insert at end:

"but, in so doing, believes that a new bank holiday established as a result of the Bill should not be so established unless an existing bank holiday is no longer specified as a bank holiday."

I regret the fact that the Executive has lodged an amendment to send the bill back to the committee, given the fact that, as a member of the committee that considered the bill, I am satisfied that we took sufficient evidence and that there was sufficient scope for discussion of whether we should approve the bill at stage 1.

Real benefits could come from having a bank holiday for St Andrew's day. It is wrong for some members to give the impression that the business community is in some way unified in opposition to the bill: it is not. The retail sector and the tourism sector are ambitious about what they could achieve through having a St Andrew's day bank holiday. Even some of those in the business community who are opposed to the bill are opposed to it purely on the basis that they would want a St Andrew's day holiday to replace an existing bank holiday; others just do not want another bank holiday full stop. Those who oppose the bill are divided on what they think should happen.

The Executive fails to recognise the economic benefits that could flow from the bill if there was a bank holiday in November—a time of the year when business is slow for both the retail market and our tourism sector. Some people—including the Executive, as we have heard—have argued that the bill would not allow us legally to enforce a St Andrew's day holiday. If that argument is turned on its head, it is an argument to abolish all bank holidays full stop. Why bother having any of them, if they are not legally enforceable? The reality is that the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill provides the only avenue under the Scotland Act 1998 that would allow a bank holiday to be created in Scotland.

I am particularly surprised at the Executive's narrow-minded attitude in failing to recognise the cultural benefits that could be gained by our having a St Andrew's day holiday. The Executive is taking its usual narrow attitude. It is frightened to have a St Andrew's day holiday because it is frightened that people will become a bit more nationalistic about Scotland and its culture. Some cultural spin-offs could come from the bill. We should consider what Ireland has achieved. It is surprising that the Executive does not seem to be able even to recognise that fact.

As ever when it comes to cultural matters, the Executive is good at talking the talk, but it is appalling when it comes to walking the walk. After the Enterprise and Culture Committee considered the bill in detail and published its unanimous report, the Executive decided to kick the bill back to the committee to try to find an alternative way to celebrate St Andrew's day. What happened was clear—the committee was unanimous. The members of the Executive parties supported the idea of the bill. It is strange that the Executive does not seem able to get its head around that.

The Executive wants to kick the bill back to the committee because it would not like the result. It wants to send back the bill in the hope that the next stage 1 report will recommend that the Parliament vote down the general principles. That is typical of the control freakery that we have come to expect from the Executive. I hope that members across the Parliament will recognise that the Executive, in its amendment and by wanting to kick the bill back to the committee, is riding roughshod over the parliamentary process.

I hope that that will not happen, although I suspect that it will: yet again, we will find that the Liberal Democrat spines have taken an early recess and that the Lib Dems will kowtow to their masters in the Labour Party. I hope that members will respect a decision that was arrived at following detailed consideration by the Enterprise and Culture Committee and support the bill at stage 1.

I always thought that the Parliament made the decisions on legislation, not the committees—the committees are part of the process, while the Parliament makes the final decisions.

I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I congratulate Dennis Canavan on his efforts to have St Andrew's day recognised as a day for national celebration in Scotland and thank him for bringing the matter so far up the agenda. As the member of the Scottish Parliament whose constituency includes the ancient city of St Andrews, the significance of St Andrew's day is of particular resonance for me. I congratulate the St Andrew's week organisers on putting together, once again—I quote from the brochure—

"eight days of colourful events and activities celebrating the very best of Scotland's rich culture and cuisine",

culminating on St Andrew's day.

St Andrew's week started with modest ambitions not so many years ago, with the primary aim of encouraging people to visit St Andrews and to celebrate St Andrew's day in St Andrews. The time has now come for Scotland to have not modest ambitions to celebrate St Andrew's day, but visionary aims to create a day of national celebration and, indeed, a national holiday when Scotland's rich heritage and ambitious future can be celebrated both here and by Scots throughout the world.

We should have a national day for Scotland, just as they do in France with Bastille day, in the United States of America with independence day and in Ireland with St Patrick's day. I believe that having such a day could give Scotland great opportunities to promote all that is good about our nation on the international stage. St Andrew's day seems to be the obvious day on which to celebrate our national day. That would allow Scotland to become the focus of the winter festival season, launched on St Andrew's day and culminating in our unique celebrations for the new year.

I therefore welcome the intentions behind Dennis Canavan's bill. The policy memorandum states:

"The intention is to facilitate the creation of a ‘National Day' in order to celebrate Scotland and its people in terms of culture, diversity, history, tradition, contemporary society, arts, sport, enterprise, international standing".

Unfortunately, the bill as introduced does not and will not deliver on that intention.

Spineless!

Order.

The bill will not deliver. That is recognised by the very committee to which Mr Matheson referred. It is recognised in the committee's report, which makes it quite clear that the bill will not fulfil that policy intention.

I have long been a supporter of the principle of creating a national holiday for St Andrew's day; that is why I supported Dennis Canavan's bill proposal. However, the bill does not deliver that. In essence, the bill makes a technical amendment to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, which would allow—only allow, not force—banks not to deal on that day. The bill does not create a national holiday and frankly—

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes. I do not have time to take interventions.

Iain Smith is talking rubbish.

I am not talking rubbish.

Banks will not take the day off. I would be very surprised if banks and financial institutions were to take the day off, so we would not be any further forward.

I disagree with one fundamental policy intention—it is included in the policy memorandum—of Dennis Canavan's bill. I refer to the intention to create an additional holiday. I have always believed that a St Andrew's day holiday should be created by replacing an existing holiday—my preference would be for the replacement of the spring bank holiday—as we did in the Scottish Parliament. We created a St Andrew's day holiday for our staff by replacing another holiday.

The case has not been made for creating an additional holiday. Dennis Canavan makes comparisons with other countries in his policy memorandum, but it is flawed because it does not take full account of the local holidays—

Yes it does.

It does not. I have read the policy memorandum. It does not take full account of local holidays that are additional to the bank holidays in Scotland.

Although I remain fully committed to the principle of having a St Andrew's day national holiday, I do not believe that Dennis Canavan's bill will deliver that. I would, therefore, be unable to support the bill in its present form at stage 3 and I am not sure that the bill could be amended to deliver a bill that I could support at stage 3. That is why I welcome the Executive' constructive amendment, which refers the bill back to the Enterprise and Culture Committee for further consideration. The amendment is not an attempt, as some claim, to kill the bill. On the contrary, it keeps the bill very much alive.

The Executive's amendment creates the opportunity for cross-party discussions so that we can find a way forward that can lead to the creation of St Andrew's day as Scotland's national day: a day of national celebration and holiday.

I very much hope that members will support that aim and respond positively to the opportunity. The Parliament is a legislature, not a debating society. We must get legislation right. Let us refer the bill back and get it right.

We reach the open debate. Time is tight if I am to include all eight members who have asked to participate.

I join other members in congratulating Dennis Canavan on highlighting the need properly to celebrate St Andrew's day. It is a clear failing that there is no public recognition in Scotland of St Andrew's day.

I commend Dennis Canavan for his commitment to raising the profile of the day. It seems entirely appropriate that along with our new Scottish Parliament we should have greater recognition of our patron saint and that we should use the day to celebrate all that is good about Scotland. I note from the responses to the consultation that there is strong support for measures to ensure that St Andrew's day becomes a day of national celebration of Scotland's diversity of cultures, faiths and ethnic origins. As the consultation report points out, the fact that St Andrew was not a Scot could be a positive advantage in promoting the day as an international and multicultural celebration.

There is a lot of scope for improving the way in which St Andrew's day is celebrated, both here in Scotland and internationally. I call on the Executive to take a co-ordinated approach to promoting the day and, in particular, the idea that St Andrew's day could be used for a celebration of our ethnic diversity.

Can the member explain why we should expect anybody internationally to celebrate St Andrew's day when we cannot celebrate it in Scotland by means of a holiday?

I will not take any lectures from the nationalists, who chose to vote down a proposal on St George's day being a national holiday in England when that proposal came before the House of Commons.

Rubbish.

Check the voting record. I think that Scottish National Party members will find that one of the SNP MPs voted against that proposal.

I believe that the bill does not and cannot prevent employers from requiring employees to work on St Andrew's day. It is likely that many sections of the private sector could not or would not pass on a public holiday that was created to their employees. That strikes at the heart of the proposal in the bill.

I note from the report on the consultation that the bill is welcomed by the Scottish Retail Consortium. Much has been said about that in the debate. I presume that that means that the consortium anticipates that a public holiday on St Andrew's day will result in increased retail opportunities, which must mean that it does not anticipate that Scotland's shop workers will benefit from the proposed public holiday. I am sure that the Scottish Retail Consortium will say that shop workers would be paid at enhanced rates if they were required to work on the new holiday. Unfortunately, past experience leads me to doubt that that would be the case. However, I would welcome a commitment from the Scottish Retail Consortium that it would ensure that, if shop workers had to work on the public holiday, they would be given enhanced payments and time off in lieu.

It would be unfortunate if we were to create a holiday that applied only to public sector workers and to those who are better paid. To do so would leave some of our poorest workers, such as shop workers, without the benefits that others would enjoy. A day of celebration should not be the preserve of the public sector.

I applaud the intentions of the bill. In a newly devolved Scotland, it is right that we should set one day aside to celebrate our national identity. It is also right that that day should be St Andrew's day. However, I believe that there is much more that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive can do to raise the profile of St Andrew's day. I also believe that the creation of a new bank holiday will not in itself achieve that aim.

I hope that the minister will give a commitment to take the steps that are necessary to ensure that St Andrew's day becomes a broad and inclusive celebration of what it means to be a Scot. I hope that he will ensure that whatever action we take is sustainable. I also hope that St Andrew's day becomes as embedded in our culture as Burns day has become.

We are talking about a day on which the nation would celebrate itself and yet I do not hear much in the way of celebration from the Executive benches.

Curiously, the one big omission from the lists of national holidays is the United Kingdom. Perhaps that is because it is not quite British to celebrate one's country or perhaps the sensitivities of being a multinational state mean that folk have never wanted to fix on a single day for such a celebration for the reason that it would cause too much controversy. Whatever the reason, it should not detain us here in Scotland.

St Andrew is the patron saint of many countries and things including, rather diversely, fishmongers, gout and sore throats—I am not entirely sure how all that came about. At one and the same time, he is the patron saint of unmarried women and women who want to become mothers. That is an interesting juxtaposition, given the traditional view that the churches take on those matters. First and foremost, internationally as well as in Scotland, St Andrew's strong association is with Scotland. All of us know the stories and the mythology; indeed, people may not realise it but some of his relics are in St Mary's cathedral in Edinburgh.

St Andrew societies right across the globe help the diaspora to maintain a link with home. I remember growing up in Australia and taking part in St Andrew's day celebrations in that country. When I came back to Scotland, I was astounded to discover that there was virtually no celebration in this country. If there is an objection to Scotland alone in the UK having such a national day, one need only point out that other devolved countries are going down the national holiday road. I am thinking of Catalonia, Flanders, Wallonia and Quebec. Scotland should not be left behind, even if the Executive thinks that that is what should happen.

A moment's thought is all that is needed to realise the potential for the sort of event that could be organised around such a holiday. It would become the key trigger for events such as a festival at Gretna that could have at its centre the various marriage-related traditions that are associated with St Andrew, of which there are many. It could also trigger a fishing festival or a big music festival—after all, St Andrew is the patron saint of singers.

People also say that St Andrew's day is in the off-season. Of course it is, but the tourist industry is always looking for opportunities to expand that season. That is why the industry is so much in favour of the St Andrew's day holiday. We can centre the holiday around roaring fires, ceilidhs and whisky; none of that sounds too bad to me, or anyone else. We can take a lesson from places such as Salzburg and Berlin, which make enormous money out of Christmas markets. In his intervention on the minister, Jim Wallace made a throwaway remark about shopping. Many cities across Europe make a big deal out of shopping; why on earth cannot we do the same?

When Celtic Connections was first launched, I remember people saying that a huge traditional music festival in Glasgow in the middle of January would never work. It did and it is now one of the biggest such festivals in the world.

I note that business people other than the CBI are more positive about the St Andrew's day proposal. I believe that the Executive's churlish response—that is the only way to describe what has happened in the chamber today—betrays a complete lack of ambition for Scotland and for the celebration of our culture. The Executive amendment suggests that its real problem is a reluctance to sanction anything that would be a celebration of the nation. Why should the rest of the world take it seriously if this country does not? Shame on the minister for his appalling statement today. Let us ditch the cringe, let us embrace St Andrew and let us give Scotland a break.

Today's debate has been passionate. Dennis Canavan made his contribution exceptionally well. Roseanna Cunningham has just taught me an awful lot about St Andrew and patron saints that I did not know. I was unaware that there was a patron saint of gout. We take something away from every debate.

There is a fine line between a meaningful but symbolic gesture and tokenism. Many who look at the Parliament say that we have crossed that line in the past. We must examine the bill carefully to ensure that we get it right this time. One of the main criticisms that has been levelled at the Parliament has been its desire to legislate too readily. That problem afflicts all legislatures; it is not unique to this one.

I suspect that there is cross-party support for making St Andrew's day more prominent and making more of it. The question that we must ask is whether the bill is the right vehicle to address that. Tom McCabe's amendment makes it clear where the Executive parties stand. Having looked at it, I do not think that the bill would entail significant compliance costs. It does not look to be particularly onerous. The Executive has supported many other pieces of legislation that have been rather more onerous for business and for others.

To some extent, the bill is symbolic—let us not pretend that it is anything else—and by nature I am sceptical of symbolism in our laws. If by passing the bill we would give impetus to our tourism sector and bring something else to our retail and other sectors, then we must at least give the bill careful consideration. Some of the imaginative proposals on how to make use of St Andrew's day may not have entered the debate had the bill not been introduced. Dennis Canavan should be congratulated on stimulating the debate.

Some people are concerned about introducing an additional holiday into the Scottish calendar. As my colleague Murdo Fraser's amendment indicates, there is a relatively simple answer to that—substitute a St Andrew's day holiday for another, although which one might be the subject of an equally passionate debate.

Does Derek Brownlee sense the hypocrisy? This Parliament accords itself something like four months of recess. The working people out there are looking for one additional day. For goodness' sake, the member should try to present himself in a better light.

I would not accuse any member of hypocrisy. I do not know what other members used the recess for, but it was not entirely a holiday for me.

Many businesses, particularly small ones, have a legitimate concern about the impact of an additional holiday. We should not dismiss those concerns out of hand, although Dennis Canavan made some interesting points about what the bill would do and we should be aware of the potential benefits. I see an opportunity to make more of St Andrew's day than we have done, and an opportunity for the Parliament to give a lead in doing so. We should not be afraid to make more of our Scottish culture and history than we have done. That does not do anything for the SNP. Making more of our culture and history is to do with Scottish patriotism, which is utterly unconnected with nationalism, unionism or anything else.

Dennis Canavan should be congratulated on his vision of what St Andrew's day could become, and on introducing the bill, which deserves further debate.

Well done, Dennis. Not so well done the Executive. However, I recognise that the people who composed the Executive amendment believed that they were being constructive. I do not malign their intention, but I criticise their judgment. I do not understand why all the good things that are mentioned in the amendment could not be achieved once the bill's general principles have been agreed to. It is possible to do all sorts of all-singing, all-dancing things by agreeing to the bill's general principles at stage 1, just as well as by remitting it.

I take particular exception to the amendment in that it misquotes the committee report. Unfortunately, paragraph 5 of the report contains a typo, which does not help, but I think that it is trying to say that the bill does not of itself fulfil the purpose of creating a national day of celebration. The amendment that I am being asked to support—but will not—says that the report

"concludes that the Bill does not fulfil this purpose".

There is a serious difference between what the report says and what the amendment says that it says and I think that it is not right that a parliamentary amendment should misquote a document on which it claims to found.

The bill does not claim to do everything. It wishes there to be a great house—or a church or a temple or some other structure—of Scottish celebration for St Andrew's day. The bill seeks to create a door. It could be argued that if one creates a door, one does not have a house, but without a door one will not have a house. Unless we agree to the bill's general principles and show keenness and support for the concept that it embodies, we will not make great progress with having all sorts of all-singing, all-dancing St Andrew's day celebrations.

It is important that we should celebrate St Andrew's day. I have supported that cause for many years and will continue to do so. We will assist the cause more by getting the bill on its way. After stage 1, all sorts of amendments can be introduced and people can argue about whether St Andrew's day should be an additional holiday.

The minister criticised Dennis Canavan on the grounds that it was not necessary to legislate and that the bill would not create a national holiday. However, it is not possible to create a national holiday. It seems perverse in the extreme to criticise a member for introducing a bill that cunningly stays within the law and does not break it. Although I have no doubt that the Executive's intentions are excellent, I think that its performance is not at all satisfactory. The bill should go ahead and should be improved on once its general principles have been agreed to.

I join other members in thanking Dennis Canavan and I acknowledge that, by bringing the matter to the Parliament, he has generated a liveliness, an enthusiasm and a real sense of what it means to legislate.

In its deliberations on the bill, the committee heard that we are one of the very few countries in the world—possibly the only one—that does not celebrate its national day. I think that I speak for all members of the committee when I say that we very much wished that it would be possible for Dennis Canavan's objective to be fulfilled. I have to confess that I wanted the bill to be able to do what it says on the tin.

Although I recognise Dennis Canavan's long-standing commitment to a St Andrew's day holiday, I know that the Executive has been considering proposals for improving the celebration of St Andrew's day for some time. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that those proposals had not progressed to a stage that would have allowed them to be examined by the committee during its stage 1 consideration of the bill.

It was evident from the evidence that we took that a holiday on St Andrew's day or a day of national celebration would provide the opportunity to concentrate a large number of key activities around that date. However, it was also evident that, to do that, the creation of a holiday was not necessary and that it was not within the gift of the Scottish Parliament to create a holiday, in that although it could be legislated for, it could not be enforced.

Will Christine May explain why somebody who was brought up in Dublin and celebrated St Andrew's day is going to vote today to deny the people of Central Fife the right to celebrate their national day?

Tricia Marwick perhaps meant to say St Patrick's day. I will come to that in a moment.

Paragraph 3 of the policy memorandum says that the bill's intention is

"to facilitate the creation of a ‘National Day' in order to celebrate Scotland and its people,"

and so on; and we have heard about that. When I was a child growing up in Ireland, I celebrated St Patrick's day. I spent a lot of it in church, because that was how it was celebrated in Ireland at the time. We did not do parades and things. However, when I grew older and started to work, I never got St Patrick's day off. Many members will know that my original profession was in the catering trade. I had no choice but to work on St Patrick's day, because I worked in a service industry. I was one of the many people who facilitated others on that day off.

The Executive's amendment asks us to give a little more time to consider the practicalities around the bill's proposal before taking a final decision in the chamber on whether we agree to the bill's general principles and to legislate for a bank holiday. The convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee will confirm that he and I discussed that in an unofficial conversation before the committee's final meeting on the bill. It is my view that we do not have enough information at this stage. I would welcome the opportunity for further discussion. Mr Brownlee said that he wants us to get the bill right and to have the time to do that, which seems to me to be a good reason for asking the Conservatives to support our amendment.

On Tuesday night I attended the dinner to celebrate the Carnegie awards. There were guests from all over the world at that prestigious event, which was held in the National Museum of Scotland. It was a celebration of all the very best in Scotland's culture. The food, which was excellent, was from all over Scotland and some of the dishes were based on traditional Scottish dishes. The National Youth Choir of Scotland sang some of the best known and loved Scottish ballads. The evening ended with the skirl of the pipes as two pipers marched through the auditorium. Hanging above us was our national flag, the cross of St Andrew.

I know that some members will say that our cultural heritage is not going to change and that it is here for ever. During the committee's inquiry reference was made to Burns night, which is celebrated round the world without any need for a public holiday. However, with all due respect, Burns is not the patron saint of Scotland and is not recognised by a national flag. The proposed holiday is about raising the awareness of Scotland's past—our culture and heritage—which makes us what we are today and which has given us this Parliament, which is not an assembly with no real powers, as is the case in Wales.

For the Executive not whole-heartedly to support the bill is, frankly, beyond belief. The evidence presented to the committee was overwhelmingly in support of having a St Andrew's day holiday. Even those who had concerns about a holiday wanted to associate themselves with the principle that we should celebrate this national day. St Andrew's day appears to be well celebrated in many parts of the world, but it passes relatively unnoticed in our own country. In fact, our workforce is almost at the bottom of the league in Europe for paid holidays. Surely agreeing to the bill's proposal will send a strong message to the workforce that their employers are concerned about their well-being.

Questions were asked about whether a St Andrew's day holiday would be a school holiday. Obviously, there would have to be specific consultation on that. However, it is interesting to note that Angus Council already recognises St Andrew's day as a holiday for council staff and for schools in its locality. The council reviews the holiday timing every year and bases its decision on the position of 30 November.

A St Andrew's day holiday would be an important opportunity to help instil in our young people pride in our culture, history and tradition. I hope, of course, that the tourist boards do as they intimated in evidence they would do, which is plan special events to mark that day in the calendar.

The Executive obviously has concerns about the bill. If it is already working on proposals for a more effective—to use its word—way of celebrating St Andrew's day, I hope that those proposals will be introduced for debate at stage 2. Stage 2 in committee would be the proper place for what the Executive describes as further work on developing the proposals. Going through that process would be preferable to referring the issue back to the committee for a further report on the general principles, which I assume would mean another stage 1 debate.

I understood that the aim of the Parliament was to work in a more consensual way for the good of Scotland. I therefore make a serious plea. The nature of the bill transcends party politics; I urge the Executive to acknowledge that by giving a free vote to its members. I hope that that will enable the bill to proceed.

Dennis Canavan deserves to be congratulated on the work that he has put into this proposal and on bringing the debate to the chamber today. However, there is a problem. Security staff might have to become involved because something is missing. A shiver is trying to attach itself to a spine on the Executive benches, but without success.

There is a test for this Parliament today—a test of whether we can rise above party-political sectarianism and be adult and mature enough to recognise that we are paid enough to think for ourselves, rather than being told how to vote at 5 o'clock tonight.

Seventy-five members of this Parliament were prepared to support Dennis Canavan's proposal to deliver a public holiday on St Andrew's day for Scotland. I accept that some MSPs might have thought, "Well, okay, let's debate the proposal. I don't know if I'll support it in future, but I want it at least to be debated, so I'll sign up to the proposal." However, what happens next is unique. After gathering 75 signatures, the proposal goes for its first stage of detailed scrutiny to the Enterprise and Culture Committee. There, if there are major problems, we might expect the committee to vote the proposal down, or to reach a split decision. However, there is unanimous endorsement of the proposal. Therefore, what some of the 75 do next beggars belief.

No wonder Mr Smith's contribution was so meek. He is embarrassed that he is prepared to support something until he is given instructions.

Will the member take an intervention?

He should sit down. He would not take anybody else's interventions, saying he had only four minutes. He gets his instructions, telling him what to do. Iain is big enough—and, well, adult enough, to be polite to him—to think for himself. He should have the courage of his convictions. He should stick by his original decision to support the bill.

What process is followed in this Parliament? We have detailed committee examination of proposals. Then we have a stage 1 debate. It is very rare that a bill that has reached its stage 1 debate will not be amended at stage 2. I do not think a bill has ever not been amended. Of all the bills that have come through the Parliament, I do not think that one has passed through the stage 1 debate on its general principles and then not been amended at stage 2. It is at stage 2 that the worries are dealt with. The stage 2 committee analysis—or even the stage 3 consideration—is where amendments, additions and improvements are properly introduced.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would have taken an intervention from Nora, but I am in my last minute and do not have any time.

We have a duty today to stand up for Scotland and allow a new and reinvigorated cultural renaissance that recognises our patron saint. That is a good enough reason in itself to celebrate not only our rich cultural history, but our current diverse culture here in our small nation. But I will tell members why else it is a good idea. Scottish workers work longer hours and have fewer public holidays than workers in any other of the 25 European Union nations.

The average number of public holidays in the 25 European Union nations is 12; in Scotland, we have only eight. At least let us get to 10, like Northern Ireland. If it is good enough for the Northern Irish to celebrate St Patrick's day and the battle of the Boyne, surely we should be allowed to celebrate St Andrew and Robert Burns. Let us support the general principle and stand up for Scotland's workers.

I, too, pay tribute to Dennis Canavan's work. As convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, I make it clear that I am utterly opposed to that part of the Executive amendment that calls for the bill to be referred back to the committee. I ask the Presiding Officer to give us a ruling, before the vote at 5 o'clock, on the competence of the Executive's amendment, as it is factually inaccurate in that it does not quote the committee's report accurately.

I am opposed to the proposal to refer the bill back to the committee for three reasons. First, the committee has already done the work—we have reported on the general principles of the bill, with the unanimous recommendation that the general principles be accepted. Secondly, if we repeat the exercise, there will be no way in which the Executive will get its proposed bankruptcy bill through on its timescale. The third and real reason is that our heads do not button up the back. The real reason that the Executive wants to refer the bill back to the committee is so that it can whip the Executive members on the committee to do down the bill so that it is not embarrassed by having to vote it down in the Parliament. The real reason why Lanarkshire Labour tactics are being employed is to try to butcher the bill.

I am the convener of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, but the Executive neither informed me of its proposal to refer the bill back to the committee nor consulted me as to the viability of doing so. However, I am not surprised at that, given the incompetence that the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform and the Executive have shown in their handling of the bill. The Executive submitted its evidence one working day before the report was produced. The committee members agreed unanimously that I should write on their behalf to the Minister for Parliamentary Business to complain about the contemptuous way in which the Executive dealt with the committee in relation to the bill.

Let me make it absolutely clear that sending the bill back to the committee to repeat work that it has already done is not only absurd, but will have consequences for other key aspects of the Executive's legislative programme.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

The committee considered the bill in detail. We heard oral evidence and we read the results of the consultation that Dennis Canavan undertook before the bill came to the committee and the written evidence that we received from numerous bodies. The support for the bill was overwhelming. Of course we need more time to consider the bill in detail, but that is the purpose of stage 2 and why we would set aside plenty of time for that. I give the Executive an undertaking to set aside plenty of time—as we planned—to deal with stage 2 to ensure that we end up with a good or an even better bill.

To throw out the bill today would begin the destruction of the committee system. The minute that we bring the whips into the committees or use the whips in the Parliament to overrule a committee's unanimous recommendation, that spells the end of the committee system. We are told that the committee system is the second house in Scotland, but we cannot be the second house and an independent scrutineer of legislation while taking our orders from Lanarkshire Labour at the same time.

I say to Alex Neil that I am Lanarkshire Labour and proud of it.

This has been an interesting and passionate debate. As the new member of the Enterprise and Culture Committee, I wonder what will be placed on my shoulders if the motion is agreed to.

On a technical note, I advise Karen Gillon that she will not become a member of the committee until 5 o'clock.

Okay. As the potential new member of the committee, I wonder what I have let myself in for.

The member asked what has been placed on her shoulders; it is the shackles that have been placed around her ankles that she should be concerned about.

Margo MacDonald knows me—I am always up for a fight.

I certainly respect Dennis Canavan's commitment to the issue and his desire to see a new national holiday. We have heard two different views today: Tommy Sheridan, who gave a rousing and loud contribution, wants to stick up for the workers, give them more holidays and redress the balance; however, the Tories do not want to give workers more holidays. For the Tories and Fergus Ewing, who was shouting from the sidelines, the proposal is about taking away May day—the real workers' holiday—as a public holiday. I am not prepared to sign up to that.

Does Karen Gillon appreciate that if the bill proceeds there will be an opportunity at stage 2 to vote on which alternative bank holiday should be removed? That would be determined by the committee and then by Parliament. If members voted for May day, or any other holiday, to be removed, that is what would happen.

My colleagues are suggesting that Murdo Fraser has a hidden agenda, but it is not particularly well hidden. The Tories have wanted to get rid of May day for as long as I can remember, because the real reason for it was to give workers rights. I thought that Dennis Canavan's bill was about giving workers new holidays, not replacing ones that they already have. I disagree with my colleague Iain Smith, who wants to take away a holiday from workers. If we are going to make St Andrew's day a public holiday, it should be an additional public holiday. If we are serious about the proposal, it should not simply be about exchanging one holiday for another.

I am interested in the sudden conversion of the Scottish Retail Consortium to the idea of more public holidays. It seems that there would be more public holidays for everybody—except people who work in shops. I am sure that the consortium's conversion to public holidays will follow through into our consideration of my colleague Karen Whitefield's bill on imposing the public holiday on new year's day in Scotland for shop workers.

We are being asked to make a difficult decision. Some would like the bill as it stands to proceed to stage 2; they say that we can amend it. I am not convinced about that yet—I will listen to Dennis Canavan's comments about how the bill can be amended—because I do not believe that the purpose of amendments is to wreck a bill. In amending a bill of this nature, which, as the committee report acknowledges, is not able to do what it sets out to do, we could find ourselves in contravention of the Parliament's standing orders. I would welcome Dennis Canavan's comments on that. I would also welcome the comments of the minister, who has suggested that we refer the bill back to the committee. Given that I will be a new member of the committee, I would be grateful if he would tell us what he wants to come out of that second inquiry.

In considering the proposal, we have to be clear that we are not placing an additional burden on the public sector or on the private sector. I want to be sure that anything that I sign up to will have equal weight throughout Scotland and will not be something that some people get and others do not. I know that some have taken exception to people saying that if everybody does not get the holiday, nobody should get it, but if we are truly to celebrate St Andrew and have a public holiday on St Andrew's day, every worker in Scotland should be entitled to that new holiday; it should not be something for those who work in the public sector but not those in some sections of the private sector who are the lowest paid with the worst terms and conditions.

This has been a passionate, sometimes eloquent and even erudite debate, and I have enjoyed listening to it. As a native and resident of St Andrews, I take particular pleasure in summing up for the Conservatives today.

We have heard about the fairly loose connections that our patron saint had with the town that bears his name. Nonetheless, wherever one goes in the world, one finds that Scots remember their heritage in St Andrew's societies and celebrations. I am aware of at least five towns that were settled in the new world of the Americas and Australia that bear the name St Andrews. It is estimated that there are more than 25 million people with Scots blood in them throughout the world. The First Minister talked this morning about his forthcoming visit to Canada, which, I gather, is partly intended to persuade exiled Scots to come home. That is laudable, and only today I heard that Billy Connolly is heading back home—perhaps Sir Sean will not be far behind.

However, we have always lacked a focal date around which we can organise the celebration of all things Scottish. In a sense, we have had too many national days. In Edinburgh and elsewhere, hogmanay is a major focus and money spinner, and Burns day, on 25 January, is another major day to commemorate. However, neither of those days fulfils all the requirements of a national day.

As we have heard, the Irish also have a diaspora. However, our Celtic cousins have, as usual, been far more successful at promoting their culture and nationhood than have the Scots, as Michael Matheson and others indicated.

On 17 March, St Patrick's day is celebrated throughout the world, not least at an excellent party in the city of Edinburgh. I wonder whether something similar is held in Dublin on 30 November. Indeed, I wonder whether anyone in Ireland—never mind the rest of the world—knows what 30 November is.

If we are serious about raising Scotland's profile, having a national day upon which we can build our image worldwide is an idea whose time has come.

However, I have a huge amount of sympathy with manufacturers and others who must count the cost of further compulsory holidays. We heard from some of them at the recent enterprise forum that was held in this chamber. Unlike Jack McConnell, having listened to their speeches, I did not think that those people were idiots; I think that they made a lot of sense. For that reason, while I recognise Dennis Canavan's initiative and the hard work that he has done to bring this bill to the Parliament, I do not believe that a St Andrew's day holiday should be in addition to the current holidays.

Murdo Fraser was asked which holiday he would swap for St Andrew's day. Of course, people could come up with many ideas. It is only partly with my tongue in my cheek that I say that, given that new Labour wants to move away from the shibboleths of its old red past, if there are two holidays in May, why should one or other of them not be given up? I leave it to those on the Labour benches to suggest which one they would like to give up.

I do not think that Tom McCabe convinced anyone that there are ways in which St Andrew's day could be celebrated without a holiday. I was a member of the St Andrew's day committee in my native town and I remember the great difficulty that we had in building a programme of events without having a recognised focal date upon which we could concentrate. What a shot in the arm it would be to that hard-working committee in St Andrews and to Scottish tourism in general if we were to celebrate our national day with a holiday, as other nations do.

Sure, a vote for the bill would not, in itself, create a public holiday. As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament is not legislatively competent to create one or enforce it. However, it has the power to provide the banks with an opportunity to give their employees a holiday. What on earth is wrong with that? I urge everyone to support the bill and see where it leads us at stage 2.

I congratulate Dennis Canavan on bringing this bill to the chamber. I also congratulate Donald Gorrie on his objectivity and on his door analogy, which has registered well. In addition, I would like to thank the 75 members who supported the bill.

Before I proceed, I should declare my interest as a non-remunerated founding director of the Scotland Funds, which is a body that seeks to activate the diaspora—in the United States of America, initially, and elsewhere—and involve it in the celebration of Scottish values at home and abroad. That organisation would undoubtedly benefit from the creation of a St Andrew's day holiday.

Today's debate has generated real passion, but it has also generated some red herrings. Karen Whitefield talked about the Westminster vote on the proposal for a St George's day holiday, but that was a proposal to create a holiday in place of the May day public holiday. The SNP member who voted against it was accompanied by a phalanx of Labour people. I trust that Karen Whitefield would have voted with us if she had been there.

Last week, the First Minister uttered some positive words about St Andrew's day, but I have to remind him that procrastination is the thief of time. Procrastination will do us no favours and it will make little impact on our busy, highly congested world, which has to deal with many competing messages. Imagine where Ireland would be without the formal momentum that it has created behind St Patrick's day. If members do a Google search for "St Patrick's day", as I did yesterday, they will find 22.2 million hits. There is a lot behind it.

I firmly believe that the St Andrew's Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Bill offers the legitimacy, profile and momentum that Dennis Canavan, his supporters and the First Minister want it to have. It is simply a case of chicken and egg, or the concept that is encapsulated in Kevin Costner's "Field of Dreams": build it and they will come—in this case, create it and they will celebrate.

Would the member care to comment on what the opinion outside the Parliament will be? How well will Scots understand the decision to dump the idea?

I thank the member for that. I can tell her that there will be condemnation across the planet. My e-mail inbox is already full of messages from people from Baltimore and various other places. We will be condemned for failing to leverage a major asset.

If the First Minister thinks that there is an issue about educating people to use a St Andrew's day holiday, there are lots of lessons that we can draw from abroad. People are ready and waiting for us to introduce the holiday and they are looking for the signal. That signal needs to be given quickly.

The proposition is simple. Bertie Ahern is able to talk about the way in which St Patrick's day converts goodwill and affection for Ireland into tangibles such as investment, trade and people coming to live in Ireland, to be educated and build houses there and so on. Dennis Canavan's bill proposes the creation of a St Andrew's day holiday, which will broadcast Scottishness and give people a chance to participate. The proposition is made in the passionate belief that the holiday will be rewarding and will be good for the people of Scotland. The opposing proposition is that we should slow the process down, do nothing and pretend that there is no demand, that we are not ready and that it could be expensive.

One of the propositions—Dennis Canavan's—genuinely maximises the benefit. The committee work has already been done and I strongly urge the Parliament not to require it to be done again. I urge the Parliament to listen to Alex Neil's message that the bill could well be killed in committee. The bill should legitimately go on to stage 2. That will broadcast the message that Scotland is open for business and is willing to leverage its assets, in line with what Margo MacDonald said. If we do not do that, we run the risk not only of failing to maximise those assets but of permanently damaging our committee system.

I, too, begin by congratulating Dennis Canavan on bringing forward the proposition and raising what has been a passionate debate on the right way to celebrate St Andrew's day. I recognise that there is support throughout the chamber for a celebration of St Andrew's day and that it should be an occasion of national pride and a celebration of Scottish culture and heritage. I recognise that there is support for the proposition, but the question that faces us all is how we can deliver on that vision.

Will the minister guarantee that the Executive will support the committee in bringing the proposal back at stage 1 in the next few months?

I certainly give that assurance. We expect the committee to bring the proposal back as quickly as possible when it has further considered how a St Andrew's day celebration of the sort that members have reflected on during today's debate can be delivered

The Enterprise and Culture Committee's report says of Dennis Canavan's desire for

"this new bank holiday, falling … on or near St Andrew's Day, to become a ‘national day of celebration'"

that the bill does not

"of itself fulfil this purpose. The establishment of an additional bank holiday does not place a statutory obligation on employers to grant it as part of employee holiday entitlement."

In the light of the committee's findings, it is surely incumbent on the Parliament to consider and scrutinise matters further before the bill progresses.

I confess that I am totally confused about the Executive amendment. If the Executive opposes a bank holiday for St Andrew's day, the bill cannot be amended to remove such a provision. Other provisions might be added, but that provision cannot be removed, because to do so would destroy the bill. An amendment to do that would not be accepted, so what is the point of referring the bill back to the committee?

I am coming to why we should refer the bill back to the committee. Given the committee's finding that the bill will not deliver Dennis Canavan's objectives, it is only sensible to refer the bill back to the committee to do further work and to seek answers to the questions before the bill heads to stage 2 for amendment. Clarity is needed.

Murdo Fraser and others asked further questions during the debate. The principle in the bill is that an extra bank holiday should be created, but the Tories, including Murdo Fraser, seek an alternative. The principle that he and the other Tories adopt is that St Andrew's day should be a substitute for an existing bank holiday. If that happened, which bank holiday would we choose? If the holiday was a substitute not for a bank holiday but for a local holiday, how would that be achieved? How would we ensure in practice that workers had the day off?

Will the minister give way?

I will take a short intervention as I do not have much time.

The intervention must be brief as the minister is in his last minute.

The minister must understand that such matters can be dealt with by stage 2 amendments in the normal passage of a bill. Will he explain—

That is fine, Mr Fraser. Minister, you are in your last minute.

We do not have clarity about what members want. Michael Matheson accuses us of riding roughshod over Parliament. Since when did asking the committee to do a little more work to answer such questions amount to riding roughshod over Parliament?

Tommy Sheridan and others launched personal attacks on the Liberal Democrats. At least the Liberal Democrats have the backbone to stand up and point out that the bill does not deliver the objective that Dennis Canavan seeks to achieve. [Interruption.]

Order, Mr Matheson.

It is not just me or the Executive that says that, but Murdo Fraser, Michael Matheson, Alex Neil, Jamie Stone, Susan Deacon, Christine May and Richard Baker. Their report makes the position clear. The committee is unanimous that the bill does not deliver Dennis Canavan's objectives.

You must finish now.

I ask all members who sincerely wish St Andrew's day to be marked as a day of national pride in and celebration of Scottish culture and heritage and who wish to give people time off to celebrate to refer the bill back to the committee and give the committee further time to make proposals to achieve those laudable objectives.

I thank all members who participated in the debate; I apologise if I do not have time to mention them all by name. The debate has been good and interesting. It has reflected the breadth of support for my bill's general principles. If the vote at 5 o'clock simply reflected the tenor of the debate, I would win it hands down.

Several members who spoke are Enterprise and Culture Committee members. I am grateful for the work that the committee did and for the speeches that committee members made. Michael Matheson, Shiona Baird and Alex Neil—the committee's convener—made valuable contributions. I repeat that the committee, including Christine May, who has reservations, took a unanimous decision to recommend approval of the bill in principle by the entire Parliament.

The Executive insults the committee by proposing to refer the bill back to it, because that implies that it has not done its homework on the bill. The truth of the matter is that it was, if anyone, the Executive that did not do its homework. The consultation on the bill was launched 15 months ago and the bill itself was published five months ago, yet the Executive did not provide a response until last week when, at the 11th hour, Tom McCabe sent us a one-page letter that contained no new evidence but simply expressed the Executive's view that it had some reservations about the bill, mainly because of the business community and because the bill might not achieve its intended aim.

Let me respond to two members—Karen Whitefield and Karen Gillon—whose speeches had merit but who displayed some misunderstanding of the bill. Rightly expressing her concern for shop workers, Karen Whitefield asked whether all such workers would receive the St Andrew's day bank holiday. The answer is that they probably would not get the holiday, given that they do not all get bank holidays at the moment. At our press launch yesterday, a representative from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers said categorically that his trade union supports the bill. If shop workers do not get the day off, USDAW will try its best to negotiate a day off in lieu or a premium payment for those who are expected to work on the day.

The Scottish Retail Consortium's members make commitments about extra-time payments and time off in lieu. I want an assurance from the Scottish Retail Consortium that it will hold its members to those commitments.

There are certain things that this Parliament can do, but employment law is a matter that is reserved to Westminster. This Parliament does not have the power to enforce the observation of a holiday. The bill is the only mechanism that is available to the Parliament to facilitate the establishment of a bank holiday and thereby encourage employers to give their workers the day off and trade unions to negotiate with employers to ensure that as many workers as possible get the day off.

Karen Gillon expressed concern about May day. Does she seriously argue that a majority in the Parliament or in the Enterprise and Culture Committee would abolish May day? I think not. I was in the Westminster Parliament when Harold Wilson's Labour Government created the May day holiday. Indeed, I voted for it. The instrument that was used to create the May day holiday is exactly the same as the one that I ask this Parliament to agree to in achieving a St Andrew's day bank holiday. Under the Scotland Act 1998, the power in schedule 1 to the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 is now devolved to this Parliament.

The weakest two contributions to today's debate came from the Executive ministers. They said that the bill would not enforce a bank holiday, but I have never claimed that it would do so. However, the bill will certainly facilitate the creation of such a holiday. Neither Tom McCabe nor George Lyon put forward a convincing case.

To sum up, this simple one-page bill has the backing of the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. Initially, it also had the backing of 75 members. All of them apparently intended to vote to agree to the principles of the bill until the Executive lodged its last-minute amendment, which has been cobbled up to delay the bill or, possibly, to kill it off at a future point.

I remind members of Edwin Morgan's poem, which Sheena Wellington—who is one of the strongest supporters of my bill—read out at the opening of the Parliament building:

"What do the people want of the place?
They want it to be filled with thinking persons
as open and adventurous as its architecture.
A nest of fearties is what they do not want.
A symposium of procrastinators is what they do not want.
A phalanx of forelock-tuggers is what they do not want.
And perhaps above all the droopy mantra of ‘it wizny me'
is what they do not want."

I therefore appeal to all MSPs, particularly those who supported the bill by signing the initial proposal, to consider themselves here, at this moment, first and foremost as representatives of the people rather than mere party hacks. The overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland want a St Andrew's day holiday. We can help to achieve that by voting against the Executive amendment and voting for the general principles of the bill, which will present an opportunity for all Scots to celebrate our national identity and to promote Scotland on the international stage.